
Justice Department says Trump can undo national monuments; California areas could be on list
President Trump has the authority to abolish national monuments set aside by past presidents to protect areas of historic and scientific interest, the Justice Department said in an opinion this week, potentially laying the groundwork to dismantle California's two newest monuments — Chuckwalla and Sáttítla Highlands.
The May 27 legal opinion released Tuesday overturns a more than 80-year-old Justice Department determination that presidents can't revoke national monuments created by their predecessors under the Antiquities Act.
The finding follows an Interior Department effort to explore altering monuments as part of a push to expand U.S. energy production, a move that set off alarm bells among conservationists that certain public lands could be on the chopping block.
Then-President Biden signed proclamations designating Chuckwalla and Sáttítla Highlands national monuments in California's desert and far north shortly before leaving office early this year. The Justice Department, in its new opinion, said it was asked to look into whether the Antiquities Act — the 1906 law permitting presidents to create monuments — can be used to revoke them.
The opinion, titled, 'Revocation of Prior Monument Designations,' says it can.
In the 50-page document, Deputy Assistant Atty. Gen. Lanora Pettit wrote that presidents can find 'that the 'landmarks,' 'structures,' or 'objects' identified in the prior declaration either never were or no longer are deserving of the Act's protections; and such an alteration can have the effect of eliminating entirely the reservation of the parcel of land previously associated with a national monument.'
Since its passage, the Antiquities Act has been used by 18 presidents — split evenly between Republicans and Democrats — to designate monuments. California is home to 21 national monuments, more than any other state.
During a Wednesday hearing in Washington, U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) questioned Interior Secretary Doug Burgum about the opinion, which he called 'extremely dangerous.'
He specifically asked what the secretary's intentions were with regard to the Golden State's newest monuments, which he described as enjoying strong bipartisan support.
'We have a responsibility and direction to take a look at the recently created ones,' Burgum replied.
'There are people in communities, when we create restrictions on land use, that does restrict some of their economic opportunity, and we want to listen to those as well,' he said, adding that the department is seeking 'a balanced approach' and would be open to further dialogue.
Padilla and fellow Sen. Adam Schiff were among the federal lawmakers from California who pushed for the creation of the monuments.
'The Trump administration is seeking to rewrite the Antiquities Act without the approval of Congress and erase all precedent prohibiting the elimination of lands designated as a national monument,' Schiff said in a statement. 'And, continuing his assault on the Golden State, the president seems to have at least two California treasures in mind: Chuckwalla and Sáttítla national monuments.'
'But the law is clear: Congress did not intend for the Antiquities Act to give Donald Trump or any other president the power to reverse the decades of hard work undertaken by conservationists, tribal leaders, and local California communities to safeguard precious lands and cultural sites,' he added.
Chuckwalla spans 624,000 acres of dramatic canyons and rugged land adjacent to Joshua Tree National Park in Southern California, while Sáttítla encompasses 224,000 acres of pristine forests and unique geological features near the Oregon border. Native Americans led the charge to safeguard the land they consider sacred.
Critics of the way the Antiquities Act has been used to set aside vast tracts of land often point to a mandate for monuments to be limited to the 'smallest area compatible with proper care and management of the objects to be protected.'
But public lands advocates note that the law has long been used by presidents to protect large landmasses — including the designation of the Grand Canyon by Theodore Roosevelt in 1908.
Padilla said that Western states skew large relative to their Eastern counterparts, 'so the appropriateness and size of monuments and other areas of designation tend to be larger.'
John Leshy, an emeritus professor at UC College of the Law, San Francisco, and a former solicitor at the Interior Department, sees the new opinion as a largely symbolic gesture being made by the Trump administration on behalf of a faction of the Republican Party that 'hates public lands.'
'I think they're throwing that out to try to placate them and say, 'We're on your side,'' he said. 'But will that quiet them down until the president actually takes some sort of action? I don't know.'
Even before California's youngest monuments were designated, there were fears they could be rolled back by the Trump administration.
During his first term, Trump sharply reduced the boundaries of two monuments in Utah — Bear's Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante — and stripped protections from a marine monument off the coast of New England to allow commercial fishing. The Biden administration reversed the changes.
In February, Burgum issued an order that many saw as opening the door to potentially eliminating or shrinking monuments. He directed his assistant secretaries to 'review and, as appropriate, revise all withdrawn public lands,' citing a federal statute corresponding to the law that allows presidents to create monuments.
Then, a little over a month later, the Trump administration caused confusion when it issued and then appeared to roll back an announcement implying the president had rescinded his predecessor's orders creating Chuckwalla and Sáttítla.
Last month, a federal suit was filed by a Texas-based conservative think tank on behalf of plaintiffs to invalidate the Chuckwalla monument, arguing Biden had overstepped his authority when he created it.
Some believed California's new monuments were at most risk of being targeted, in part because Trump might seek to undo his predecessor's actions.
Whether presidents have the authority to alter monuments is hotly contested. Litigation challenging Trump's previous monument reductions was still pending when Biden reversed them and the matter was never settled.
'Courts have never ruled on this issue one way or another,' Leshy said. 'They've just been silent on whether one president can undo another president's proclamation.'
If Trump moves to undo monuments in California, litigation is likely.
Krystian Lahage of the Mojave Desert Land Trust, a nonprofit dedicated to protecting the California desert, said his group is trying to raise awareness of the broad support for Chuckwalla.
Sunday marked the 119th anniversary of the Antiquities Act, and to celebrate the group co-hosted an event that Lahage said drew more than 100 people. There was an off-roading tour, an exploration of the geology and wildlife, stargazing and a community BBQ.
'Our goal there was to show folks all the different things they can do in the national monument — and what it's protecting,' he said.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Axios
17 minutes ago
- Axios
Focus groups: North Carolina swing voters mostly OK with Trump's LA response
A majority of North Carolina swing voters in our latest Engagious / Sago focus groups supported President Trump's deportations and activation of the National Guard and Marines in Los Angeles, despite some concerns about civil rights and government overreach. The big picture: These Biden-to-Trump voters' desire to eject undocumented migrants from the U.S. — and their critical views of California and Democrats — shape how they see this massive test of executive power playing out far from their own hometowns. Seven of 12 panelists said they support the president's activation of the National Guard and Marines in L.A. despite Gov. Gavin Newsom's and local officials' objections. Three disapproved; two didn't have an opinion. Eight of the 12 said they believe Democrats prioritize illegal immigrants over American citizens. Why it matters: "Democrats who doubt their party remains out of touch with swing voters will be stunned by what these North Carolinians told us about immigration," said Rich Thau, President of Engagious, who moderated the focus groups. How it works: Axios observed two Engagious / Sago online focus groups Tuesday night with North Carolinians who said they voted for Joe Biden in 2020 and Donald Trump in 2024. The panelists included nine independents and three Republicans. While a focus group is not a statistically significant sample like a poll, the responses show how some voters are thinking and talking about current events. What they're saying: "The stance California has on illegal immigration only enables all these people, and they're not going to stop it," said Gregory D., 43, of Greensboro. "So we need to bring it up another level. It needs to stop. California doesn't want to stop it." "It's in the best interest of the nation that we call this, I don't know, uprising, call it what you want, but yeah, that needs to get nipped in the bud, just like George Floyd and all that sh*t should have," said Alex H., 44, of Charlotte. Butch F., 58, of Mebane, said he believes illegal immigrants got government assistance that reduced North Carolinians' access to disaster funds. Gerius J., 33, of Charlotte, said he's for diversity but wants to "do it the right way. Get the right paperwork, the right documentation." He said Democrats "have always wanted illegals to come here," and if anyone objects, "you're the bad guy. And as a U.S. citizen, I'm not the bad guy. I just want things to be done the right way." The other side: Karen L., 61, of Wilmington, said of Trump's immigration actions, "When he first started out, it seemed like he was really going after the criminals — like, the ones committing murder and rape — and he was getting all of them. And we don't want them here if they're [here] illegally, especially. But now ... it's way too extreme, and he's violating civil rights, and he's causing more chaos than anything." Rachid O., 46, of Raleigh, said the administration should prioritize arresting and deporting criminals, above all undocumented immigrants. Many undocumented immigrants pay taxes "so they contribute to the country," he said. Between the lines: Shifting the focus to combating illegal immigration may help him with some voters who have cooled on his performance in other areas. Several panelists voiced concerns about the economy, tariffs and political corruption and objected to Trump's moves to cut university research, or possible Medicaid cuts in the spending and tax-cut bill before Congress. "It's getting harder and harder to afford things," said Kimberly S., 37, of Sanford. "We are just kind of told, 'Hey, you just got to bear with us just a little bit more,' and it doesn't feel like it's getting any easier." Shauna S., 54, of Harrisburg, said when it comes to tariffs, "There's no plan, and it's been erratic. It appears to be an opportunity to manipulate the markets, and I really want someone to investigate where and who's actually gaining financially every time these tariffs are being threatened and then removed. I'm just curious what's really happening."


Axios
17 minutes ago
- Axios
Israel's strike on Iran was 8 months in the making
Israel's stunning and sprawling operation overnight targeting Iran's nuclear facilities, missile sites, scientists and generals followed eight months of intensive clandestine preparations. Why it matters: The operation launched a new war in the Middle East that could draw in the U.S., demolished any hopes of a nuclear deal, and dealt arguably the biggest single blow to the Iranian regime since the 1979 revolution. And it is only just beginning. Driving the news: Israel is attempting to "eliminate" Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities in an operation expected to last at least several days, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced. Other Israeli officials said it could take weeks. Israel attempted — just in the opening hours — to assassinate nuclear scientists it claims had the know-how to make a nuclear bomb. Around 25 scientists were targeted and at least two are confirmed dead so far. Israel also targeted the entire top brass of Iran's military. The commander of the Revolutionary Guard and military chief of staff were both confirmed dead, along with another senior general. The Israeli operation didn't just include air strikes. Israel's Mossad intelligence service has operatives on the ground conducting covert sabotage operations on missile and air defense sites, officials said. Israel is expected to keep pounding Iran's underground nuclear facilities in the coming days, along with other targets. Behind the scenes: The idea for an operation simultaneously targeting Iran's missile and nuclear programs — which Netanyahu has described as existential threats to Israel — took hold after Iran struck Israel in October, during a cycle of tit-for-tat escalation between the countries. Motivated both by Iran's fast-growing missile arsenal and its weakened air defenses following Israel's retaliation, Netanyahu ordered the military and intelligence services to begin planning. The Israeli military said another factor was intelligence about nuclear weaponization research and development that indicated Iran could build a bomb more quickly if it elected to do so. The planned opening in the coming weeks of a new underground enrichment facility that would be immune to even massive U.S. bunker busters added to the urgency. Friction point: Even as President Trump pursued a nuclear deal, Israel was preparing for this strike — gathering intelligence, positioning assets and eventually conducting drills. Those preparations alarmed some in the White House, who worried Netanyahu might move even without a green light from Trump. Netanyahu assured Trump he wouldn't. The White House, for its part, told Netanyahu that if Israel attacked Iran, it would do so alone. Trump himself said several times in recent days, including several hours before the strikes, that he opposed an Israeli strike that could "blow up" the negotiations. The intrigue: But in the hours after the attack began, Israeli officials briefed reporters that this was all coordinated with Washington. Two Israeli officials claimed to Axios that Trump and his aides were only pretending to oppose an Israeli attack in public — and didn't express opposition in private. "We had a clear U.S. green light," one claimed. The goal, they say, was to convince Iran that no attack was imminent and make sure Iranians on Israel's target list wouldn't move to new locations. Netanyahu's aides even briefed Israeli reporters that Trump had tried to put the brakes on an Israeli strike in a call on Monday, when in reality the call dealt with coordination ahead of the attack, Israeli officials now say. State of play: The U.S. side has not confirmed any of that. In the hours before and after the strike, the Trump administration distanced itself from the Israeli operation in public statements and private messages to allies. Secretary of State Marco Rubio swiftly stated that Israel's attack was "unilateral" with no U.S. involvement. Hours later, Trump confirmed he knew the attack was coming but stressed the U.S. had no military involvement. The degree of U.S. intelligence, logistical and defensive support for Israel's operation remains to be seen. What to watch: Israel is now bracing for Iran to unleash hundreds of ballistic missiles and drones toward Israel, and perhaps also U.S. bases in the region.


Axios
17 minutes ago
- Axios
Padilla episode triggers five-alarm fire for Democrats
Democrats spooked by President Trump's state-sanctioned shows of force have shifted into five-alarm fire mode, warning he's pushing American democracy to the brink. Why it matters: They're pointing to what happened yesterday to Alex Padilla, California's senior senator, as a crossing-the-Rubicon moment. Driving the news: The jarring scene of Padilla, a Democrat, being forcefully removed from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem's press conference after interrupting it — and then being dragged to the ground and handcuffed — felt like kerosene on the nation's political fire. To Trump's most loyal allies, Padilla's actions were merely an exercise in political theater. Back in D.C., House Speaker Mike Johnson was among the Republicans blaming Padilla, saying that "at a minimum," the senator should be censured. To Democrats, the episode crystallized fears about Trump's willingness to crush dissent, and shatter democratic norms and institutions. "This is the stuff of dictatorships. It is actually happening," said Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii). A few Republicans were just as alarmed. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who's repeatedly proved her independent streak, told reporters the incident was "shocking at every level. It's not the America I know." Padilla wasn't arrested, but the fallout from the incident promises to endure as Congress continues to wrestle with Trump's giant tax and spending bill. Zoom in: To fully understand the alarm that's gripping Democrats over the Padilla incident, consider two factors: 1. It took place in a mostly Democratic city where Trump's immigration agents are using military-style tactics to conduct raids and make arrests in mostly Hispanic communities and workplaces. Padilla is one of the nation's highest-ranking Hispanic public officials, and is the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee's immigration panel. 2. Trump's over-the-top-enforcement seems to be about more than immigration. When Padilla interrupted Noem during her press conference to try to ask a question, the DHS secretary had just said that her agents were in Los Angeles "to liberate this city from the socialist and the burdensome leadership that this governor and this mayor have placed on this country."